Page 6-“Is ‘Michael’ Jesus Christ’ new Name?”

Page -6

“Is ‘Michael’ Jesus Christ’ new Name?”


Revelation 1: 4,12

Revelation 1: 4,12

Is‘Michael’ Jesus Christ’ new Name?

Is‘Michael’ Jesus Christ’ new Name?

A few years ago an individual professing to be a member of the the body of Christ, wrote a long article in which she teaches that the name ‘Michael’ is Lord Jesus Christ’ new name he received after his earthly life and his resurrection.

Not having legitimately answered the problems with drawing that conclusion when confronted with evidence that disproves the notion, they have written again, regurgitating the same circular, self-validate erroneous conjecture.

She will not accept that Jesus is not and never was an angel. Jesus helped his Father create all of the angels.

Jesus is one of a kind; unique in form from all other beings and things. That being so, it would be dishonoring him in Scripture to refer to him a “one of the chief princes”. He is not and never was part of a collegium or existing group. He has stood distinct and separate from his creation.

And there is hardly anything secret if his new name was being told by the prophet Daniel hundreds of years before Christ was even born in flesh and had lived his life faithfully to receive a new name. the new name comes after conquering and not before.

She is totally backward in thinking.

Below is her latest article regarding Christ and the name ‘Michael’. After, is my original rebuttal to her first article asserting Jesus and Michael are the same person.

[Many refute that Michael the archangel is an identity of Jesus Christ, in his capacity as protector of the saints (Dan.12:1; John17:12; 6:39; 18:9; Rev.19:12) and defender of God’s supremacy in the face of global idolatry (Rev.13:8,4)
(The name “Michael” means, “Who is like God?”).

Those who refute that role of the resurrected Jesus Christ, point to the fact that Jesus could not be a mere angel, even if being, an arch – angel.

Those who make such an assertion, apparently do not know the meaning of the Greek word, angelos. It simply means “messenger” (John12:49; 7:16).

The Greek meaning of “arch”, is defined as the original prototype, with no equal. To be the “archangel”, is to be supreme among God’s messengers.

When Armageddon arrives, Jesus takes on an identity of a warrior (Rev.19:11,14; 17:14; 12:7) (Rev.3:12; Jer.31:33; Heb.10:16; Ex.34:14; Deut.11:18; Rev.7:3; 13:7,8,16,4). The name “Michael” (“Who is like God?”), perfectly describes his battle tactic and purpose, and indicates the target of his warfare that needs to be neutralized by the strategy reflected in that victorious name (Isa.40:25,18; 46:5) (Rev.13:14).

Others may refute this named role of Jesus, based upon Michael being called “the great prince” (Dan.12:1) and “one of the chief princes” (Dan.10:12-14). Those are the topics that the link below, addresses.

The article on the chief princes was broken down into three parts/questions. Previously, only part one was finished. This post serves as notice, that part two is now ready.]

Notice that she believes the word ‘angel’ to be simply a descriptive word describing an action or role-function ( a messenger). She does not view the word ‘angel’ to refer to a specific type of being or creature. She doesn’t believe a spirit creature has a body either; including God. In her most recent post she writes: To “see God’s face” is a spiritual perception, because God is not physical, but spiritual (John4:24). We can’t see God not because He is a spirit and flesh can’t behold a spirit. But that does not mean God cannot be beheld by another spirit. And those who will eventually see God face to face will be spirits like Him And in His presence when they actually will see Him face to face. Literally.

Below is my initial rebuttal to her first article:

[Comment #1 from article:

“He who overcomes, I will make him a pillar in the temple of My God, and he shall go out no more. I will write on him the name of My God and the name of the city of My God, the New Jerusalem, which comes down out of heaven from My God. And I will write on him My new name.” (Rev.3:12)

What we learn:

1. “Overcoming” is required. The name is “written” on a “white” “pebble”,

and only the receiver “knows” the “name”. Receiving the new name
is accompanied by receiving “hidden manna”.

3. “Overcoming” is again required. The new name reflects God, New Jerusalem, and Jesus Christ’s own new name (John 15:21; Mark 13:13)

(On the basis of Christ’s new name, his followers who also bear it, will be persecuted.

A closer scriptural look at each of these points, opens up the meaning further.]

Note:There is no doubt or seeming disagreement that the things being spoken about are part of the new kingdom covenant.

[Comment #2 from article:

REV.2:17

“He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches. To him who overcomes I will give some of the hidden manna to eat. And I will give him a white pebble, and on the stone a new name written which no one knows except him who receives it.”

1.”Overcoming”/”conquering”
Revelation’s depictions are rife with spiritual warfare (Rev.6:4,8; 16:14,16; 6:17; 8:6 (1Cor.14:8); Rev.9:4,7,9,15,16; 11:7; 12:7,17; 13:7,10,15; 17:14; 18:24; 19:11,14,19,21; 20:8,9).

For a time, it is the unsealed Holy Ones who are conquered, trampled by Gentile Beast, and imprisoned (Rev.13:7; 11:2; :24; Rev.13:10). They must reverse their circumstances, in order to “overcome” their enemies and become sealed.

For those who do this, the new name and all the blessings that come with it, await.

How do they overcome?

We are pointedly told, at Rev.12:11.

This testimony is based upon God’s commands, which His genuine witnesses have branded on their hearts (Heb.10:16) which would be symbolized by a mark on their hand and forehead (Deut.6:6,8; 11:18; Rev.14:1; 7:3; 22:4.

Why is this “overcoming” by testimony, so great a feat?

Because any testimony that is disloyal toward the supremacy of the Beast, is punished by “death” (Rev.13:16,17,15; John 16:2; :35).]

My note: Within these comments it is correctly pointed out that these new names of the covenant are kept secret and not received until after the one receiving has conquered.

[Comment #3 from article:

“New Name”

God changed Abram’s name, to Abraham. Why did God give Abram a new name?

Gen.17:5 reads;

“No longer will you be called Abram; your name will be Abraham, for I have made you a father of many nations.”
(Neh.9:7; Rom.4:17)

Abram means [Exalted Father].
Abraham means, [Father of Many].
Abraham was the exalted father to the Jews (John 8:33; Matt.15:24; Luke 19:9,10).

However, this was not to remain the basis of salvation…

Nor the role of Abraham as father to the physical Jews only!
(Luke 3:8; Matt.21:43; John 3:3,6,5; Mark 10:14; Heb.1:7; 2:5,16; Gal.3:26,27,28,29) (Gen.28:12,13,14,17; John 1:51; Rev.22:4,3).

God made a covenant with “Abraham”, that he would become a father of “many Nations”, not just the Israelites (Gen.17:5).

This multinational group (Rev.5:9,10; 1Pet.2:9,10), would become spiritual Jews (Rom.2:28,29), and therefore, have “Abraham” as their spiritual father (Gal.3:28,29), through their imitation of Abraham’s faith (Rom.4:16,17; 3:22,24,30; 9:8; 4:11; Gal.3:7,14; 1Cor.12:13; Eph.2:15; John 10:16; Col.3:11.

The point of all this is, that when God’s purpose for one of his servants changes….

so does that servant’s name. The name is a reflection of divine designation.

To be given a new name, is to be given a new designation…a new purpose…a new responsibility.

“which no one knows except him who receives it”

This is also true of Christ (Rev.19:12)

If we learn why Jesus is the only one who knows his own “new name” [before he gives it to others -(end of Rev.3:12)], then we can understand why others have exclusive knowledge of their new name.]

My note: These comments like the ones above, clearly indicate a ‘change’ of circumstances leading to the new name.

[Comment #4 from article:

Michael” must stand up (Dan.12:1), whose “new name” means, “Who is like God ???”

Michael’s name reflects his role and purpose during Armageddon.

It is Christ’s “new name”. He is the only one to know the answer to the question his “new name” asks, because of Matt.11:27 above.

He is the only one who knows, why God alone deserves unique praise, glory, and honor; until he also gives this same name (and knowledge) to those whom he chooses (Rev.15:2,3,4,8).

Can you see why this is true, according to Matt.11:27?]

My note: The above comment state that ‘Michael’ is the new name given Jesus the Christ having to do with his role at Armageddon. Is that so?

end of article comments

Below are two points which are scripturally verifiable by your own independent research that do not square with this teaching.

1. If it is true that ‘Michael’ is Jesus’ new name (the covenant new name) given after he conquered and his approval by God ; and if it is also true that it was kept secret until then, why is this name (Michael) revealed in identifying the angelic prince that came to the aid of the angel watching over Daniel (Daniel 10:13)?

Daniel lived hundreds of years before Christ Jesus was born on earth, executed his Divine ministry, and conquered by his death. And, the new covenant was not in effect at that time as the covenant with physical Israel was still ongoing.

Jesus could not have been approve prior to these accomplishments. Yet the name ‘Michael’ appears centuries earlier in the book of Daniel.

And, if this name has to do with Jesus’ role at Armageddon, why is he being called this name in Daniels time period? Wouldn’t that be premature?

This seems paradoxical.

This idea would have to mean that he received that new name before he came to Earth and that it was no secret. If that were the case, the name would have no connection with Kingdom honors as a result of overcoming, had nothing to do with his end time role, and that it was no secret.

2. The only begotten Son of God is one of a kind and not part of any group. Dan. 10:13 however, refers to Michael as ” ‘one‘ of the chief princes”.

Therefore, Michael’s position is not exclusive to him. Rather, being ‘one of” carries the connotation that he is one of a group of angelic princes.

Whereas, Christ is exclusive in all aspects and is separate from the angels who unlike him were fashioned by God and not taken of (begotten of) Him. Jesus is both unique in nature and in role.

Scripture teaches us that it was by and for the Son of God that All things were created. This includes the angels. They have always had a subordinate existence with the Son of God.

https://brotherjohnsite.org/2015/06/27/the-divine-nature-of-the-son-and-his-role-in-gods-arrangement-2/

These facts raise inexplicable questions about the interpretation that Jesus son of God and Michael are one and the same person.

Richard Weathers



Back to top